Respond to cancellation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds that the action changes live shop data and requires seller's explicit confirmation, which is consistent and provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds a critical note about requiring seller approval. There is no unnecessary information, and the important warning is highlighted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the expected outcome (e.g., what happens after accept/reject), how to obtain cancellation_id, or the confirmation token flow. For a mutation tool with destructive effects, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, meaning three parameters (cancellation_id, reason, decision) lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent unaware of what cancellation_id represents, how to provide reason, or the meaning of decision values. This is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Accept or reject a buyer's cancellation request') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cancellations (which is read-only) and respond_to_return (different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions that it always requires the seller's explicit approval and that it changes live shop data, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use accept vs reject, how to obtain cancellation_id, or mention alternatives like using a confirmation token.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.